On the cusp of the July 4 holiday weekend, President Obama quietly announced (via an underlings blog post) that he had unilaterally chosen to delay Obamacares employer mandateits requirement that businesses with 50 or more workers provide federally approved health insurance. Obama claims to possess the legal authority to choose not to execute this aspect of the law that he spearheaded and signed, despite the fact that Obamacares text declares that the Shared Responsibility for Employers Regarding Health Coverage provision, commonly known as the employer mandate, shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

Thats almost exactly the same language that Obamacare uses to refer to the starting date for its budget-busting exchange subsidies. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, over the next ten years, Obamacare would funnel a colossal $1.212 trillion from American taxpayers, through Washington bureaucrats, to insurance companiesthe ultimate recipients of those subsidies. Obamacares text states that the subsidies shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013.

So, if Obama can unilaterally decide not to execute Obamacares employer-mandate provisions (which shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013), does this mean that a future Republican president can unilaterally decide not to execute its exchange-subsidy provisions (which shall apply to taxable years ending after December 31, 2013)? If Obama can grant himself what Nebraska Senate hopeful Ben Sasse calls a de facto line-item veto over parts of an existing law, then couldnt a future Republican president grant himself that same power and wield it over different parts of that same law? If Obama isnt constrained to execute laws as written, wouldnt a future GOP president enjoy similar liberties?

In truth, if a future Republican president were to claim to have the authority to choose not to execute Obamacare as written, it would represent an egregious violation of the public trust, the presidential oath, and the separation of powers. The most essential power or duty that the president possesses is one that we generally (perhaps too casually) take for granted: his constitutional responsibility to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed. The first line of Article II (the Constitutions executive article) reads, The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America; the full executive power is vested in just one person. If we elect a president who doesnt take seriously his responsibilityhis dutyto execute the laws as written, then the Constitution affords us little recourse (at least short of impeachment). In this way, both the Constitution and the citizenry put an extraordinary level of trust in just one man.

If a future Republican president were to claim to have the power not to pay out Obamacares taxpayer-funded exchange subsidies  the power to delay that portion of the law for whatever period of time he chose and thereby effectively change the law  it would be a gross abdication of duty. If that were to happen, hopefully that Republican president would not threaten to veto as unnecessary subsequent legislation to amend the law and grant the delay that he or she sought, thereby restoring the rule of law. And hopefully he or she wouldnt say something like this:

Well, this was a very practical decision that actually doesnt go to the heart of us implementing [Obamacare] .

I will seize any opportunity I can find to work with Congress to strengthen the middle class, improve their prospects, improve their security...but where Congress is unwilling to act, I will take whatever administrative steps that I can in order to do right by the American people.

If President Obama possess the legal authority to delay the employer mandate despite what the law says, then any future President has the same legal authority and it wouldn't "represent an egregious violation of the public trust, the presidential oath, and the separation of powers". How could it unless Obama making this unilateral decision is the same thing?

Is it because the fictional president in this hypothetical situation is a Republican that he or she is expected to actually obey the law? Perhaps this hypothetical President is white so they can't call any criticism racist?

“Other than the Constitution, any law can be reversed by congress.”....

Assuming the standing president doesn’t veto it. Better have enough votes in place that he is unable to veto. Then again there is that pesky “executive order”. The executive order is like the “race card”, play it when needed.

The author assumes there will be a Republican president in the future...and he also assumes that Obama will actually stand down as president on January 20, 2017.

I think it’s wise not to ASSUME anything in regards to Obama, who many patriots believe will not leave office unless forced to do so by a downward change in his fortune.

The fact is that Obama since 2011 has conducted himself as a dictator, and there has been no effective counter attack from the loyal opposition, who allowed him to steal the election of 2012.

I submit, what is stop Obama from becoming the “President For Life” if he wants the office? The U.S. Constitution? It hasn’t stopped him from conducting a five year run of almost daily acts of treason.

No. The same Democrats who say it’s legal for Zer0 to unilaterally alter 0bamaCare would say the opposite for a Republican president, and the GSM would throw their old positions down the memory hole. Welcome to Ingsoc.

25
posted on 08/02/2013 11:12:53 AM PDT
by Slings and Arrows
(You can't have Ingsoc without an Emmanuel Goldstein.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.